Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/530,378

ELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH SLIDABLY DETACHABLE SCREEN

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 06, 2023
Examiner
SATTI, HUMAM M
Art Unit
2422
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
283 granted / 450 resolved
+4.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
474
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§103
60.1%
+20.1% vs TC avg
§102
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§112
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 450 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kaya (Pub 20190004568). Response to Amendment Claims 1 and 4 have been amended while claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1, 3, and 4 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (Pub 20190380165) in view of Kaya (Pub 20190004568). Regarding claim 1, Fisher discloses device and display device having attached mode and detached mode comprising: an electronic device, (Base Processing Device 110 fig 1) with a single screen, consisting of the single screen, (Display Device 120 fig 1) wherein the screen is battery operated and charges when attached to the electronic device, (Para. [0060] disclosing base power system may charge tablet battery via power connection element. The tablet here corresponds to the Display Device 120 fig 1) wherein the electronic device has a wireless digital connection to the screen, (Para. [0062] disclosing automatic wireless connection between Display device and Base processing device). However, the single screen being electrically detachable from the electronic device is not explicitly disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Kaya discloses the single screen being electrically detachable from the electronic device, (note screen 102 fig 1A-1B may attach to base 104 such as in fig 1A using physical interfaces 110A/110B fig 1C which may comprise pins for delivering data as well as power between base 104 and display 102, Para. [0033]. Additionally, and/or alternatively, interfaces 110A/110B fig 1C may be wireless interfaces for transmitting data and power when display 102 is detached from base 104, Para. [0033]). One of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the electrically detachable screen mechanism of Kaya for allowing comfortable viewing of the detached screen. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kaya and Fisher for the purpose of enhancing the user’s experience. Regarding claim 4, Fisher discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 wherein the detached screen can be attached to a second electronic device, (Para. [0047] note Display Device 120 may inadvertently connect to a different computer. It is inferred that a user may connect the Display Device to a different computer if the user chose to). Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (Pub 20190380165) in view of Kaya (Pub 20190004568) in view of Yamamoto (Pub 20210072798). Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses claim 1. However, wherein the electronic device is a television is not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Yamamoto discloses wherein the electronic device is a television, (Para. [0075] note that either first or second electronic devices may be a tablet and a television). One of ordinary skill in the art would substitute the electronic device with a television device disclosed by Yamamoto in place of the Base Processing Device of Fisher so that an attachable screen may receive input from different sources and function in different operating modes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination for the purpose of allowing different operating modes to be implemented thereby increasing the value and entertainment capability of the display device and/or based device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMAM M SATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1709. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Miller can be reached at (571)272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. HUMAM M. SATTI Examiner Art Unit 2422 /JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 06, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 27, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 06, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 08, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598360
VIDEO CAPTIONING GENERATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589716
RAIN SENSOR SYSTEM, VEHICLE AND METHOD FOR DETECTING RAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587619
METHOD OF ADJUSTING PROJECTION IMAGE, PROJECTION SYSTEM, AND CONTROL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12563287
Local generation of commands to a vehicle sensor
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563164
PROJECTION METHOD AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+17.5%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 450 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month